Learning, Content Curators And The Politics Of Power
04.19.2010 | Chris Bailey | Focused on Creative
I found this clip of Jeff Jarvis via Johnnie Moore’s blog. Contained within it are some rather provocative ideas. A few of them are spot on (like how our educational system still operates as if it’s an industrial world). A few of them might be bullshit but I’m still debating internally.
The awesomeness comes in the form of how we interact with learning. So much of our training tells us that an A is better than a C, that a glowing performance evaluation trumps one with negative marks, that perfection looks smarter than blunders. And our training is completely wrong. As Jarvis notes, mistakes must be the goal, the object of the lesson. Life is a beta. It’s messy and complex and in constant flux. We’re never absolved of our responsibility to learn and improve.
What did sort of put a twist in my knickers were Jarvis’s arguments that all the good ideas are taken and that the best we can hope to achieve now is “curator” status. I get where he’s coming from: Why recreate the wheel when great content already exists? Creating content is about the ego and when we get in front of someone – regardless of whether its on stage, in a classroom, or on a blog – we do so in a quest for validation.
What seems to go unsaid is that the audience, student, and reader are merely passive participants of the process. That’s a mistaken assumption. Instead, we should think of content creation as an ever evolving mashup of ideas and personal experience. But maybe this is where Jarvis was trying to lead us. Maybe his idea of a curator is someone who is able to collect diverse information, mash it up, and recreate new knowledge.
What I don’t want to see is a tiered order where curators are relegated to second-class beneath the creators. In such a system, creators maintain their elite status and govern it through the power to release information and knowledge. Okay, so maybe that won’t happen like that but power is an interesting construct. Those who possess it don’t often give it up willingly. So who has power right now? And who will have it tomorrow?
7 Responses to “Learning, Content Curators And The Politics Of Power”
Leave a Reply
I hadn't seen this talk yet, so I thought it was pretty interesting. I disagree that curators would be relegated to second class, though. I think what Jeff is calling for is a system in which we all all content creators and that curation is actually where the value is. Those that locate primary sources and high-quality content will actually rise to the top. What you would see in that case is resource-rich media companies actually regaining value by having the manpower to do that at scale. Right now those companies are acting like creators when in fact they are effectively only syndicators. Syndication is a mechanism for curation, but in and of itself it creates little to no value (maybe reduced value by creating noise). Curation and collection from diverse, high-quality sources means that everyone gets the best/newest/most important content – whether that's in the "newspaper" (whatever form it takes) or in the classroom.
My recent post Are we seeing a trend?
Aaron, thanks for your clarification. After reading Jeff's comment below and reviewing the speech, I think your insight nails what he was trying to say. In some ways, I'm still trying to figure out where I fit in this creator/curator model (perhaps we all straddle the line where necessary). Appreciate your thoughts…its been a good topic for reflection.
I agree that we all straddle the line. Where your very specific expertise lies (and this may include being at the right place at the right time) you should be the creator, but unless you have something new to offer then just curate. As Jeff says below – "do what we do best (and link to the rest) ". That's a great mechanism toward improving quality of content and refining our information filters.
My recent post Have I Lost My Mind? PID Control of the Economy
Thanks for the provocative ideas in turn.
Where am I saying that the audience/student is passive? I am arguing just the contrary: that we start with them, that they create and we help them.
And I don't think I'm creating a tiered view. That is in the eyes of the beholder, methinks; it is perhaps, as we used to say in California, you projecting either your fear (that you are put down) or desire (that you still create that lecture). I'm really saying that there is a necessary division of functions because we can and should specialize and do what we do best (and link to the rest) and because this allows, I hope, more and better attention and support to the student.
But then, I'm an optimist.
My recent post This is bullshit: My TEDxNYED talk
Jeff, thanks for the continuation of the dialogue. And you may be right about the projection thing. I wasn't trying to suggest (though it could be read that way) that the tiered structure was coming directly from you. I just know how power works and it was a connection I made from your ideas. Those who currently possess power only give it away begrudgingly at best.
What's perhaps even more interesting is that just this afternoon I was talking about career switching with a friend of mine and the theme of "moving customers up the design chain" came up quite accidentally. It's a conversation that deserves its own blogpost, but let's just say it dovetailed nicely with your notion that the solutions begin "out there."
So, cheers for continuing to prompt my thinking deeper about all of this stuff. It's important.
Totally Chris. We're in a constant construction of our online identities – whatever the origination or 'ownership' of the content. As soon as we curate the content and it gets responded to or remixed or played back we've got the opportunity to redefine how we stand in our customers' eyes.
My recent post 7 Fundamentals Of Successful Audio Production In Web Video Production
Right on, Talmadge. It's funny you bring up identity here…it's a topic that's been on my mind a lot this past week. What I dig about your comment is how fluid and organic the process can be, which I'm not sure I grasped initially when watching Jarvis's presentation. Thanks for adding a powerful idea.